However, in considering the main appeal, a panel of five Justices of the Supreme Court in a unanimous judgment today resolved all
the issues against the appellant (Daudu) and accordingly dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
Not exact matches
In Justice Mohammed's judgment, which was read on his behalf by Justice Ejembi Eko, the apex court resolved all the three
issues raised in the appeals
against the
appellants.
«The two
issues for determination are resolved
against the
appellants.
He directed that the
appellants should raise the
issues in their interlocutory appea ls in when they file substantive appeals which they wish to file
against the Court of Appeal's judgment delivered on Thursday.
The Appellate court in its judgment delivered by Justice H.A.O Abiru upheld the decision of the lower court and resolved all
issues raised
against the
appellant.
A majority of the Court of Appeal (Justices Bruce McDonald and Barbara Lea Veldhuis) upheld the case management judge's decision striking the
appellant's statement of claim in relation to a motor vehicle accident and
issuing an order for costs
against him.
Rule 34A (2A) provides: «If the Appeal Tribunal allows an appeal, in full or in part, it may make a costs order
against the respondent specifying the respondent pay to the
appellant an amount no greater than any fee paid by the
appellant under a notice
issued by the Lord Chancellor».
The
appellants» evidence met the air of reality test and demonstrated an arguable defence on the merits in relation to the
issues of whether the respondent's action was statute - barred, whether the rate of interest claimed was sustainable and whether there was any claim for breach of trust
against the individual
appellants.
Three wage assessments were
issued against various combinations of directors of the business (the
appellants) respecting three employees.
In their notices of motion, the
appellants stated that the motions were for «[s] ummary judgment dismissing this action as
against the defendant physicians [and as
against the Crown] on the basis there is no genuine
issue requiring a trial as the action
against them [and the Crown] is statute - barred» or, in the alternative, is «barred by the doctrine of laches».